Posted on 08/05/2004 5:16:48 AM PDT by OESY
...
The now-defunct ... Capps II sought to make sure that air passengers are flying under their own identity and are not wanted as a terror suspect. It would have asked passengers to provide four pieces of information -- name, address, phone number and birth date -- when they make their reservation. That information would've been run against commercial records, to see if it matches up, then checked against government intelligence files to determine whether a passenger has possible terror connections. Depending on the outcome of those two checks, a passenger could have been screened more closely at the airport....
...
Contrary to the rights lobby, Capps II was not:
...
• A surveillance system. Neither the government nor the airlines would have kept any of the information beyond the safe completion of a flight.
...
• A data mining program. This misunderstood technology seeks to use computers to spot suspicious patterns or anomalies in large data bases, sometimes for predictive analysis.
...
The advocates' most effective strategy for killing off Capps II was to bludgeon airlines into not cooperating with its development.
...
Under pressure from the Arab and rights lobbies, the Clintonites agreed in 1997 that passengers flagged as suspicious by the then-existing flight screening system would not be interviewed. Allowing security personnel to interview suspicious flyers, it was argued, would amount to racial and ethnic profiling. On 9/11, the predecessor to Capps II identified nine of the 19 hijackers as potentially dangerous, including all five terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 77. But pursuant to the rights-dictated rules, the only consequence of that identification was that the hijackers' checked luggage was screened for hidden explosives. Had the killers themselves been interviewed, there is a significant chance that their plot would've been uncovered.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"But pursuant to the rights-dictated rules, the only consequence of that identification was that the hijackers' checked luggage was screened for hidden explosives."
Yes, "rights-dictated" rules. And what is wrong with that?
In fact, if "rights" would have dictated the rules, airlines would have not been unconstitutionally prohibited from inviting their customers to share in the prevention of their private property from being hijacked by letting their customers "bear arms."
With the possibility of 10, 30, 80 or more passengers being armed, no plastic knife wielding muslim could have or for that matter even attempted to hijack a commercial aircraft and turn into a terrorist missile.
The 2nd amendment, the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment are clearly and unambigously violated by our federal government's role and intervention concerning the issue of airline "security."
Benjamin Franklin said it best:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
Heather is a powerful investigative reporter, and good in talk show interviews, too. I wish she would get more exposure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.